Logo Redesign

[spaeps]

Hi, I'm just moving here this forgotten proposal from the dismissed bug tracker.
From the Feature Request FS#2670 opened on flyspray by @splitbrain:

FS#2670 - redesign DokuWiki logo

The DokuWiki logo https://www.dokuwiki.org/logo could use a modern refresh. This is a task for a designer, who'd like to see his work used in widely recognized software.

We're generally happy with our current logo as it represents collaboration (multiple pens) and the idea of a wiki with multiple pages and simple linking (arrows). But the logo looks a little bit outdated on our new design.

Here's what we need:

A modern reinterpretation of our current logo in the following formats:

• Full Color logo as scalable SVG for arbitrary larger sizes
• Simplified color version as pixel perfect 16x16 pixel PNG for favicon use
• Simplified grayscale version as pixel perfect 16x16 pixel PNG for interwiki link icon use
• Monochrome lineart version as scalable SVG for use on T-Shirts
• Optionally other pixel perfect sizes as PNG for small sizes (24x24, 32x32) when a downscaled SVG does not suffice

The logo would need to be licensed under the GPL.

If you're a designer and like to have a go at this project, feel free to contact me via mail if you have any questions (andi [at] splitbrain [dot] org)

A more detailed design brief is available at https://www.dokuwiki.org/devel:logo-designbrief

[spaeps]

This is the first version of my proposal, opened to suggestions.

I'm not a designer but I like the idea described in the DokuWiki Logo Redesign inspirations of a more modern, simple, flat style logo, without going too far from the original, the way those big companies already did.

[meskarune]

You did a great job with this. My only complaint is that its very hard to see at smaller sizes, so maybe simplifying the smaller sizes more would help with that. The 16px wide image could just be "[[DW]]" in blue.

[splitbrain]

@spaeps I think it's not working for me (and others who downvoted). I like the approach of simplifying, but for that it doesn't go far enough. It basically looks like the original, straightened out. But it still has a whole bunch of filigrane elements and shadows. The small version is completely unrecognizable.
I don't totally hate it, but I'm not loving it either.

[meskarune]

I think "down voting" without any sort of explanation to the author is rude and useless. I hope that the designer who created these icons will still continue to work on them and that the other people who added thumbs downs will post their thoughts rather than hide behind an emoji.

[selfthinker]

I like that they are the very first logos which actually follow the brief! :) So, it's definitely going into the right direction. But I also think that they are not yet flat/abstract enough.

That reminds me that I actually had a go at designing a new logo myself nearly 3 years ago. I just dug them up again... Please note, I am not a designer and I don't really propose these as a new logo, they are just ideas. I only wanted to demonstrate with them what I personally look for in a new logo. As such they might help the discussion.

[mprins]

actually I like the current logo, retro is hot.

[Soeldner]

I find the current also ok. I just had a little wait for a server update. Enclosed my sketch. :)

[SFITCS]

I don't have any real preference for a new logo - though I dislike (MS) flat styles because they lack the lusciousness of 3D while adding no extra meaning.
I would strongly vote for larger sizes than squint-o-vision 16x16 and 32x32 (does anything use those sizes if given a choice? i.e. are the smaller sizes needed for anything?).

Most modern browsers will use 128x128 for favicons in tabs, and in Opensearch (I've requested that limitation in DokuWiki be fixed).

Using the icons created by spaeps earlier in this thread I created a favicon that uses the 16x16.png, 32x32.png, 48x48.png, 64x64.png, and the 128x128.png (see attached). Firefox and Chrome use the 128x128 pixel image, I haven't tested other browsers.

Contents of the favicon.ico:-

--icon --index=1 --width=16 --height=16 --bit-depth=32 --palette-size=0
--icon --index=2 --width=32 --height=32 --bit-depth=32 --palette-size=0
--icon --index=3 --width=48 --height=48 --bit-depth=32 --palette-size=0
--icon --index=4 --width=64 --height=64 --bit-depth=32 --palette-size=0
--icon --index=5 --width=128 --height=128 --bit-depth=32 --palette-size=0

[m-erhardt]

I know it has been a while since this was last updated but I'd like to add some suggestions to this discussion.

A few general thoughts on this:

• a clean modern logo will require decluttering (even if this means removing details that had a meaning)
• small details become invisible/unrecognizable when scaled down (i.e. favicon size)
• In order to be recognizable even at favicon size we will need to use strong color and/or brightness contrasts (especially the beige color of the current logo is problematic)
• using less colors (or just one color) will allow the logo to be more recognizable when printed in grayscale
• We also need to question if we want to have letters in the logo at all. If so we will need to make them large enough to be recognizable at smaller sizes (which stands in contrast to the "The logo should not be made up primarily of typeface" restraint)

If we take all these things (identified problems with the old logo & restraints) into account we need to accept that the new logo will look nothing like the old one.

Here are a few sketches. Do not consider any of these final, these are just ideas. I tried to pick up at least some of the design elements from the old logo.
Opinions are welcome!

[Klap-in]

Nice! Thanks for sharing some general thoughts as well!

I like the following logos, because:
1.2, 1.3 - clear colors (but contrast between items is not enough imho)
2.4 - simpler appearance and ok contrast
3.8 - like the use of bright colors, combined with simpler appearance
... - light bulb is interesting idea, but all these colors-variants of row 4 are not my piece of cake
5.3 the best of above! I like the contrast more than 5.2
5.1 the light bulb is quite interesting, but my feeling is that with contrast of 5.3 it will improve further.

[splitbrain]

I like the cleanliness of 3.4 most, but agree that using letters might not be ideal. I would like to see a version of 3.4 that uses negative space to symbolize a pen or the arrows and drops the letters instead.

[m-erhardt]

Ok, @splitbrain here are a few more versions based on the 3.4 design.
I've also added a version with a slight gradient (6.6) which gived the logo a more vivid appearance.

This is how these versions look like at 16x16px:

[splitbrain]

Wow. I really like these. I think my favorite is 6.3

I think for the 16px version the pixels would need to be handcrafted (instead of scaling down the original) and it would probably need to be simplified much more.

[selfthinker]

I like the way this is going. 👍
I also prefer getting rid of the letters. The lightbulb is quite fitting. Although I like the 6.x logos the best (and before that 4.x with the lightbulb), I don't like that the symbols for collaboration are gone. I don't know how to add a separate pencil back in without it being too cluttered or if anything else could be done. I think the arrows are quite weak without the pencils, the pencils are the more important part of that symbolism.

[m-erhardt]

@splitbrain : I agree that the 16x16 version should be handcrafted with slightly modified proportions to better fit the 16x16 grid

@selfthinker : here are a few versions with a 2nd pencil. I tried a few things in order to make two pencils and the arrows work together in the current arrangement but as you already anticipated this makes the logo look to cluttered.

I personally prefer the versions with a slight gradient over the ones with a flat color just because it looks more vivid.
As far as further simplification goes I also made a few versions without the additional pages... any opinions on that?

[spaeps]

I'm happy with this issue revival and I want to share some ideas.

I don't like that the symbols for collaboration are gone. I don't know how to add a separate pencil back in without it being too cluttered or if anything else could be done. I think the arrows are quite weak without the pencils, the pencils are the more important part of that symbolism.

I also think pencils are the only required, since they can graphically symbolize arrows by themselves.

I was pleased by the 6.x proposal so I tried to re-elaborate it with the pencils inclusion and I ended up with 7.5 that, meanwhile, was already posted :)

I think for the 16px version the pixels would need to be handcrafted (instead of scaling down the original) and it would probably need to be simplified much more.

So, what about crafting a logo design based on a 16x16 grid directly and then scale it up?

I tried to re-elaborate the @m-erhardt great work, trying to simplify as much as possible and this come out:

(those are just caps from the inkscape icon preview tool)

Obviously, this is not a proposal but an example of what I mean by bottom up approach.

Just for saying, It reminds me the @selfthinker proposal, but more symbolic.
Also, I opted for centering the main paper above the others (that now seems brackets, or they could be if shifted).

In order to be recognizable even at favicon size we will need to use strong color and/or brightness contrasts (especially the beige color of the current logo is problematic)

Colours (red and green) are back in this example since a monochromatic solution was quite unrecognizable.

I personally prefer the versions with a slight gradient over the ones with a flat colour just because it looks more vivid.

I also think the gradient version looks nicer, but I think the logo should be sticky to the requirement, also with flat colours.

As far as further simplification goes I also made a few versions without the additional pages... any opinions on that?

As I stated before, I like the two pencils approach but crossing them looks more like a negative symbol, especially in a 16x16 icon (it would look like an X).

So, I like 7.5 more, maybe with colours, so it would be visually recognizable in 16x16 icons too.

[selfthinker]

@spaeps, I like the simplification and stylization of your version. But for some reason it's still quite cluttered. What if you removed the lines within the "document"? (Not sure if that is enough to de-clutter it, though.)

[cgalo5758]

cgalo5758 Concepts

I have two concepts in mind:

Concept 1

Concept 2

I feel like these convey a page being the result of multiple edits and the pencils look like links too! These are just drafts, trying to figure out in which direction I should go before I get meticulous with inkscape

[mprins]

retro is the new cool; for an issue that has not gained any serious traction since opened in december 2012 I feel we should stick with the current, retro design

[cgalo5758]

retro is the new cool; for an issue that has not gained any serious traction since opened in december 2012 I feel we should stick with the current, retro design

Mayhaps, but I think it might still be useful to have an alternative modern looking logo. This is definitely a small part of a larger conversation about how DokuWiki could look more modern in its default settings as users try it out for the first time. I personally love the DokuWiki logo because I have come to associate it with the DokuWiki community, but it has definitely turned off some potential users in the past during live demos; I've gotten way too many tongue-in-cheek comments about DokuWiki looking way too 2000s.

In other words, those of us who have been using DokuWiki for years may find an appeal in retro because of what we associate it with, but to the people that we try to get to adopt DokuWiki (and who may not even be correctly familiar with the concept of a wiki because they've only used Wikipedia before) it just looks outdated instead of just simple. Heck, I think the default template might better convey DokuWiki's simplicity by being more modern minimalist.

Another point here that I'd like to make is that the conversation is probably not very lively due to lack of interest but rather lack of advertising or effective communication. E.g.: I created a duplicate issue here after stumbling upon the page of the 2005 contest. Many wiki admins just remove or replace the logo as a first thing after installing their wiki. From my perspective community engagement is particularly weak (IRC is rarely active, the forum is somewhat active, people don't use dokuwiki.org pages as actual conversation sites as if they were MediaWiki talk pages, we don't use Slack, Discord, or even Mattermost to network more informally, etc.)

It would be interesting to have people downloading dokuwiki for the first time vote on their preferred redesigned logo at the download page, or put up a notice on :dokuwiki or on the forum announcing this issue (as to also encourage people to engage)

[selfthinker]

retro is the new cool

@mprins, you said the same thing 5 years ago in this very issue. So, what you meant to say is "retro is timeless"? ;-)

I like that @cgalo5758 is trying to revive the issue.
I prefer the concept 2 as in my view the pencils are more important than the letters. I also like that the colours are simpler (no gradient). I like that both of them have the dashed red line indicating something is missing or was removed and that it's distinguished from the green line.

Especially with red and green, keep colour-blindness in mind. Because there is no direct connection to the borders, the connection via the colours might get lost on 10% of the population.